Transitioning to Primes

[bleephotography]

So I've had the 24-70 II and 70-200 II for some time now and they are wonderful pieces of kit, but I simply can't get over this incessant longing to replace them with primes; they just feel more natural to me, and the weight/size/faster aperture are major factors in my decision.

Therefore, I've decided to replace these two zooms with the following lenses and I am hoping those of you with some experience can give me your honest feedback:

Option 1
Canon 24 f/1.4L II
Canon 40 f/2.8 STM
Canon 85 f/1.2L II
Canon 135 f/2L or Canon 200 f/2.8L II

or

Option 2
Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 II
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
Canon 40 f/2.8 STM
Canon 85 f/1.2L II
Canon 135 f/2L or Canon 200 f/2.8L II

or

Option 3
? ? ?

Eventually I'll upgrade the 135 or 200 f/2.8 to the 200 f/2 when funds warrant such a purchase, but for now I'll have to make do combined with the 1.4x III and 2x III teleconverters. I'll be using all of these lenses both on my two FF cameras and also on my 70D (with exception to the UWAs in Option 2, and the Sigma 18-35 would only be acceptable between 24-35).

Side note: I mostly do portraits and street photography, but I'll occasionally do an amateur sporting event as well. All casually.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Loswr]

Option 1, for a wide angle on your FF bodies.

 

[bleephotography]

Option 1, for a wide angle on your FF bodies.

Thanks for your input, Neuro. Based on your extensive collection do you have any other recommendations to cover my intended purposes? I've since added Option 3 because the only lens I've actually tried is the 85 II. The others i've just researched a bit.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm going the other way. For years, the zooms could not match the primes for sharpness, and camera bodies struggled at ISO 3200. Now, with the sharper zooms, my primes are going unused.
I'd buy just one from a shop that has a 30 day return, and see how much you use it.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'm not a fan of the idea "or this, or that." :-X The combination of zooms and primes gives you more flexibility, depending on the type of photo. Indeed, in works of great responsibility, I always carry two bodies. One with a F2.8 zoom and flash, and other with F1.4 prime. If you shoot in the studio only, makes sense to abandon zoom lenses. Otherwise, your second option is safer for times when you do not have total control over people or objects.

 

[bholliman]

The combination of zooms and primes gives you more flexibility, depending on the type of photo.

+1

I can't imagine limiting myself to primes OR zooms. I own both and use both frequently. Different tools for different purposes.

 

[Click]

My choice would be Option 1.

 

[Loswr]

Not sure about your overall budget, but you might consider keeping the 24-70 II, and swap the 70-200 II for the 135L and 85L, or perhaps the Sigma 85/1.4.

IMO, for many portrait uses the 70-200 II is great. On FF, the 85L often needs to be stopped down for sufficient DoF (I often shoot at f/1.6-2 for one person, f/2.8 for more than one). But the 70-200 II isn't really a discreet lens.

But...I see a Zeiss 100/2 in your signature, a fine portrait lens if MF works for you in that situation.

As for the 135L vs. 200/2.8L, you've got the 70-200 now - check EXIF or set it to each focal length and see which would better meet your needs.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm in transition to zooms.

 

[bleephotography]

As for the 135L vs. 200/2.8L, you've got the 70-200 now - check EXIF or set it to each focal length and see which would better meet your needs.

Good advice all, thanks! I've looked at my EXIF and the lenses I've used, and 90% of the time I use them at either the widest or longest ends. When I had the 16-35, I used it solely at 16; the 24-70 usually sits at 24 or 70; and the 70-200 at 70 or 200. Give or take 10-15mm, on rare occasion. I find myself instinctually foot-zooming if I need just a few more (or less) mm, which is why I'm considering making the switch. Honestly, the 24-70 II isn't that bad on weight for me, but the 70-200 II tends to irritate my mild case of carpal tunnel...but I do really enjoy both lenses, although I often wish they had an extra stop or two (hence my interest in primes).

I'm in transition to zooms.

Why when you have such a nice kit? Do you plan on keeping all your primes?

 

[sdsr]

I'm slightly puzzled - you say that primes feel more natural than zooms, but apparently you only own one. So I'm wondering whether you've spent a considerable amount of time using nothing but a couple of primes instead of zooms. If you haven't, follow Mt Spokane's advice.... (I find I go through phases liking both, either separately or together; it can be simultaneously restricting and liberating to wander around all day with just one prime.) If you're certain you want to take the prime route, option 1 makes more sense to me.

Option 3: Monogamy's all very well, but why not shake things up a little. If I were you, you would be me, and this is sort-of what I did: Two Canon DSLRs are enough. Keep your Canon lenses for now (they're awfully good and you may end up with seller's remorse), sell a Canon body and, if this is financially feasible, develop a primes-only alter ego via one of the newest Olympus or Panasonic M43 bodies (the new OM-D EM-1 seems especially appealing; check out Ming Thien's recent two-part review on his blog) and a handful of primes - e.g. Olympus 12mm f/2, 17mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8, 60mm macro, 75mm 1.8; Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4. Among the factors you mention, in terms of weight and size, and for street photography, such a combination is likely peerless.

 

[DavidKM]

After having only zooms and then only primes... and now having both, I can understand your desires but...

Why does it have to be one or the other. Zooms or primes... why limit yourself. That 24-70II is a killer lens with as good if not better IQ as most primes. Paired with the 70-200II, ridiculous versatility. Then pull out the 15mm, 17L, 24L, 35L, 50L, or 85L, or 135L when you're in the mood for it. Pretty much how I roll most of the time.

 

[eml58]

It's often a good idea, when you have a good idea, to wait a while & see if it was a genuinely good idea, or Lens Envy in this case, perhaps.

You own a couple of Canon's current best Lenses, the 24-70f/2.8L II & 70-200f/2.8L II, getting rid of them to replace them with Only Primes may not be in your best interests, You can certainly replace them with a selection of fast Primes 24f/1.4, 50f/1.2, 85f/1.2 L II, 135f/2, 200f/2, but the cost will be significant, and I'm not convinced you will see a Major difference in IQ.

I am of the opinion that Good Primes (The ones I mentioned Above) will generally produce better IQ at a given Length than a Zoom that covers the particular Length, in the 24-70 Range I have the 24-70f/2.8L II, 24f/1.4L II & the 50f/1.2 L, these Primes are excellent lenses, are they significantly better than the 24-70f/2.8l II ??, I don't think so, are you able to produce better Images with the Primes in this range, not better in my opinion, but different, mainly due to the ability to Blow out the Background more @ f/1.2 or f/1.4, But again, how often ??, not so much has been my experience.

Again in the 70-200 Range, I use the 85f/1.2 L II, 135f/2 & 200f/2, all again amazing Lenses, but they are pretty well particular Tools for again a certain job, primarily where you want to Blow the background, the only caveat I would add in this Range is I find the 85/135 & 200 Primes all produce a sharper image generally than the 70-200 at a similar Range, but it's at a cost, and it's at an inconvenience at times of carrying 3 Lenses instead of one.

Another factor to consider is weather sealing, in the 70-200f/2.8L II you have a well sealed Lens, that's not the case with the Primes until you get to the 200f/2, this may not be a major factor dependent on what you shoot, in my case, wildlife in Africa & Arctic/Antarctic environments, it's a major decider of what Kit I take to these Places.

Admittedly I'm fortunate in that I can afford to own &utilise both, the Zooms & the Primes, but having both, and using both, if I could only afford the one or the other, given the excellent IQ offered by the two Zooms in question, I'de stay with the Zooms, then set your sights on a particular Lens you feel you absolutely have to have, rent one for a while, if it's what you wanted, work on adding it to the Zooms you have and using it for that particular situation where the Prime will enhance your Photography.

 

[scottkinfw]

Great info!

Just an observation. In option 2, you are thinking about two zooms, while trying to get away from zooms. The 24-70 2.8 II is awesome. The 70-200 2.8 II is also quite excellent. Think hard and long before parting with these gems.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Maybe I am not adding anything new, but PWP, who often comments here, is a seasoned professional and he has abandonded the primes in the 24-70 range due to the fact that the MkII is just so good.

Myself, I can't afford to mock about too much, but I would never abandon my 70-200 2.8 MkII. I have one prime, the 35L and I like it very much for what it gives me. I think a combination is the best for those who can afford.

I am sure that whatever you choose, you will be happy as all are quality lenses. Good luck.

 

[RGF]

I use my zooms more often than the few primes I have. I used primes only for special circumstances. I like the flexibility to compose with a zoom when I can not position myself (which is often needed with a prime)

 

[pwp]

I'm going the other way. For years, the zooms could not match the primes for sharpness, and camera bodies struggled at ISO 3200. Now, with the sharper zooms, my primes are going unused.

Me too. Now that zooms really do deliver the goods, primes are a rapidly disappearing species in my business.
Other than special purpose lenses like tilt/shift glass or 300 f/2.8, it's zooms every day of the week here. Technically fussy clients couldn't be happier.

-PW

 

[AudioGlenn]

I started out with the idea that I wanted to shoot only with primes. But for the type of work I've been doing lately, I discovered that zooms are more useful for my style of shooting. I sold my 35L and 50mm 1.4 after I got my 24-70 II. Honestly, I regret having to sell my 35L. It was nice for those special times when I need the low light capabilities (mainly for video) but those occasions are few and far between.

I agree with others' posts about having both in your arsenal. I will start building my prime collection once again after I get a 16-35 f/2.8L II. Starting with the 100mm Macro L, then an 85 1.2, TS 17mm L, possibly a new 50mm whenever that is announced or a newer/sharper 35L (no rush on either for me), and eventually a 200mm f/2L.

 

[Eldar]

I have the two zooms, which I combine with the 35/1.4 (I have the Sigma, but I would have been just as happy with the Canon), 85/1.2L II and the 135/2L. The 24/1.4L II is a great lens, but I sold it because of the quality of the 24-70/2.8L II. The prime is a lot better in low light conditions though.
The 35/1.4 is in my view different, because you benefit from shorter DOF and bokeh beyond what you get with the zoom. And the 35mm focal range is my preferred walk-around prime. I have not tried the 40mm, but I would seriously consider the 35/1.4 instead, unless size is what you´re looking for.
In the longer end, I am rediscovering my 135/2L. I normally go for my 70-200, but, after reading some of the very enthusiastic threads on CR, I realize that I ought to use the 135 more. The slightly shorter DOF is good for portraits and its bokeh is great. It is also a much handier size than the zoom.

 

[klickflip]

It really depends on your preferred way of shooting & subjects.

My general way is.. if its kinda reportage stuff where your right in amongst things then the 35 1.4 is great (I use the sigma and its amazing shoot nearly wide open and if your focusing 1-2m then background get blurred really nicely, its just wide enough to do more general atmospheric wide views too.

the 50 1.2 is always on my camera in case, and I use that the most. Its great at portraits from head & shoulders to waist up to full length - Just use your feet to zoom it either way! and personally I think adds a fashiony feel to images, basically dynamic enough & flattering enough Plus the OOF creamyness is unbeatable... even by the 85 1.2! yes the 85 has so much OOF but the 50 does it a tad nicer because you get a better blurry sesnse of the surroundings that can add story & atmosphere to the image. The 50 1.2 feels the best lens on.. period! Super solid & perfect size everything feels so balanced with it on.

And the 85 & 135 are great when you really want to separate your subject from the background, or be able to shoot a bit more distance / removed from your subjects.

From what you say though Id hazard a guess that you're more wow'd or prefer the dynamic look of wide 24 views that you can create and longer focal views to get that press/sports feel.
Thats great but what I would say is those views are prob more becoming easily, i.e some look and style is made for you instantly by those focal distances and the lens.

I'd encourage you to try using a 35 and 50 for a week and begin to appreciate the infinite subtleties that you can achieve with these lenses, also a real sense of engagement with your subjects and surroundings.
Instead of an image just popping straight out to you, you have to really move around, forwards, back, up & down to find a interesting or flattering view.
If you like lots of landscape or architecture then a 24 or wider is prob a must have though, - maybe get a 26-35 / 17-40 to keep your love of wide views.
And if you shoot some amature sports then the 70-200 is a pretty essential, yes the 135 and 200 can do it very very nicely but they are much more specialist to get one shot rather than say cover a whole event from the side. Though if you have ground access and want to craft and set up the views then these will be amazing and more satisfying. But not half as flexible if say you normally shoot your kids / friends / local team and like to share the shots with all of them.

So my recommendation would be
16-35
35 1.4
50 even start with the 1.4
70-200

But try just a 35 or 50 (or maybe even the 40pancake to cheaply begin with but guessing it will feel really tiny, plasticky compared to even a 50 1.4 so you might not take it too seriously)
These primes will really help in you framing and ability to see, also might through up some nice surprises and a fresh enthusiasm since you probably dont shoot at these FLs much.

Happy standard prime shooting!